<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The public will, part 2: The historical preservation of the Revue Theatre is in the public interest.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.northronces.com/northroncesblog/2006/06/11/the-public-will-part-2-the-historical-preservation-of-the-revue-theatre-is-in-the-public-interest/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.northronces.com/northroncesblog/2006/06/11/the-public-will-part-2-the-historical-preservation-of-the-revue-theatre-is-in-the-public-interest/</link>
	<description>Community events, occurances and comments</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:40:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: NorthRonces</title>
		<link>http://www.northronces.com/northroncesblog/2006/06/11/the-public-will-part-2-the-historical-preservation-of-the-revue-theatre-is-in-the-public-interest/comment-page-1/#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator>NorthRonces</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.northronces.com/northroncesblog/?p=47#comment-52</guid>
		<description>Hi Adam,

Thank you for the contribution. Your comment supports the position that heritage designation can actually be used as a selling point; an actual benefit to the property owner—as well as the community. At the Save the Revue meeting it was mentioned that housing prices are strong in Cabbagetown, at least in part, &lt;strong&gt;because&lt;/strong&gt; it is a part of a Heritage Conservation District. The situations are not identical, of course, but I am sure that home owners in the North Ronces area understand that having a neighborhood cinema is a boon to their quality of life—not to mention their &quot;cultural capital.&quot;

NorthRonces</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Adam,</p>
<p>Thank you for the contribution. Your comment supports the position that heritage designation can actually be used as a selling point; an actual benefit to the property owner—as well as the community. At the Save the Revue meeting it was mentioned that housing prices are strong in Cabbagetown, at least in part, <strong>because</strong> it is a part of a Heritage Conservation District. The situations are not identical, of course, but I am sure that home owners in the North Ronces area understand that having a neighborhood cinema is a boon to their quality of life—not to mention their &#8220;cultural capital.&#8221;</p>
<p>NorthRonces</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Sobolak</title>
		<link>http://www.northronces.com/northroncesblog/2006/06/11/the-public-will-part-2-the-historical-preservation-of-the-revue-theatre-is-in-the-public-interest/comment-page-1/#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Sobolak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:59:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.northronces.com/northroncesblog/?p=47#comment-51</guid>
		<description>The McQuillans used the Globe &amp; Mail article, &quot;Heritage Homes A Hard Sell&quot;, on behalf of their opposition to listing/designation.

Here&#039;s what Catherine Nasmith has to say regarding said article in her e-newsletter Built Heritage News #84 (June 12 2006)...

&lt;blockquote&gt;Editor’s Note: This article upset a lot of heritage activists, but a careful reading will reveal that the reporting is accurate, the issue is the misinformation being spread by the real estate agent involved…unfortunately such myths are rampant in the real estate world. The Globe and Mail Real Estate section has been, and continues to be, a great friend to heritage preservation in Toronto. In this case the article was in response to a request from BHN to publicize the availability of these two very interesting properties. Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity, the real estate agent for 171 Old Forest Hill succeeded in turning an opportunity into an obstacle. I understand there is a new agent at work now.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Perhaps the McQuillans ought to keep that in mind...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The McQuillans used the Globe &amp; Mail article, &#8220;Heritage Homes A Hard Sell&#8221;, on behalf of their opposition to listing/designation.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s what Catherine Nasmith has to say regarding said article in her e-newsletter Built Heritage News #84 (June 12 2006)&#8230;</p>
<blockquote><p>Editor’s Note: This article upset a lot of heritage activists, but a careful reading will reveal that the reporting is accurate, the issue is the misinformation being spread by the real estate agent involved…unfortunately such myths are rampant in the real estate world. The Globe and Mail Real Estate section has been, and continues to be, a great friend to heritage preservation in Toronto. In this case the article was in response to a request from BHN to publicize the availability of these two very interesting properties. Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity, the real estate agent for 171 Old Forest Hill succeeded in turning an opportunity into an obstacle. I understand there is a new agent at work now.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Perhaps the McQuillans ought to keep that in mind&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

